<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>The Fighting 29th</title>
  <subtitle>All about New York's 29th Congressional District</subtitle>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/2006/12/federal-voting-panel-electronic-machines-a-ok.html"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/node/4218/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.fighting29th.com/node/4218/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2006-12-07T14:41:45-05:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Federal Voting Panel:  Electronic Machines A-OK</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/2006/12/federal-voting-panel-electronic-machines-a-ok.html" />
    <id>http://www.fighting29th.com/2006/12/federal-voting-panel-electronic-machines-a-ok.html</id>
    <published>2006-12-07T14:41:45-05:00</published>
    <updated>2006-12-07T14:41:45-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Rottenchester</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Voting Technology" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A group of technologists on a federal advisory panel <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401290.html">deadlocked</a> on a proposal to require paper trails on electronic voting machines.  Even though experience shows that paper trails are better than nothing, those voting against paper trails cited the need to replace voting systems as one of the reasons for rejecting the proposal.</p>
<p>This is a classic case of throwing good money after bad:  once an expensive system is purchased, the pressure to retain and enhance -- rather than replace -- that system is overwhelming.  It is critical that New York chooses the right voting technology the first time, because second chances are almost non-existent in government technology procurement.</p>    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>A group of technologists on a federal advisory panel <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401290.html">deadlocked</a> on a proposal to require paper trails on electronic voting machines.  Even though experience shows that paper trails are better than nothing, those voting against paper trails cited the need to replace voting systems as one of the reasons for rejecting the proposal.</p>
<p>This is a classic case of throwing good money after bad:  once an expensive system is purchased, the pressure to retain and enhance -- rather than replace -- that system is overwhelming.  It is critical that New York chooses the right voting technology the first time, because second chances are almost non-existent in government technology procurement.</p>    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
